YOLO-Sp: A Novel Transformer-Based Deep Learning Model for Achnatherum splendens Detection
, Yong You 1, Decheng Wang 1, Dongyan Zhang 3, Yuchan Lv 1, Mengyuan Lu 1 and Xingshan Zhang 1Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors
I went through your research paper and found it interesting. However, I suggest you to perform a little modification in your paper as follows:
1. please explain why this plant species and not the others
2. Make a table in material and method and within that table describe the deferences between your code and the other deep learning algorithms.
3. please apply the codes you have mentioned in Tables 2,3 and 4 on one image and compare the output results.
4. please make more discussions about why we have to choose your code instead of available ones.
Regards,
Author Response
Response to Reviewer #1:
Dear Authors,
Thank you for submitting your article entitled "YOLO-Sp: A novel deep learning model based on Trans-2former for Achnatherum splendens detection" for consideration. I want to express my appreciation for your manuscript, as I found it truly captivating and thoroughly enjoyed reading it. However, I have identified a few minor issues that I believe would enhance the clarity and impact of your manuscript.
Introduction
- Lines 12: You should remove the reference from the abstract.
Response: Thanks for reviewer’s suggestion. We’re sorry for this error. We have removed it.
- Lines 31: I am not entirely sure about this statement. Nevertheless you should definitely add a reference to support it.
Response: Thanks for reviewer’s suggestion. We’re sorry for this error. We have removed it. We are sorry that we did not express clearly. We have corrected this error in blue font in L31-33.
- Lines 33-34: Correct this statement to be clearer. You cannot
"develop" the natural environment…
Response: Thanks for reviewer’s suggestion. We’re sorry for this error. We have corrected this error in blue font in L33-36.
- In the entire Introduction section there are some missing spaces
Response: Thanks for reviewer’s suggestion and experience. We've corrected it in the manuscript.
- Regarding the species Achnatherum splendens. The first time that you mentioned it in the text, put the common name in parentheses. After that, you should write it as A. splendens. You have to use italicsevery time you refer to a species (e.g. Colchicum autumnale, Rumex obtusifolius).
Response: Thanks for reviewer’s suggestion and experience. We've replaced it in blue font throughout the manuscript.
- Lines 50-55: Add references in each sentence
Response: Thanks for reviewer’s suggestion and experience. We've corrected it and added references in blue font in L49-54.
- Line 68: Conversely not converse
Response: I'm very sorry. This is an author's name.
- Line 72: “Changes in the relative composition of vegetation” Is this a sub-title? I don’t understand what you are trying to say.
Response: Thanks for reviewer’s suggestion. We are sorry we forgot to delete this sentence. We have corrected this error in blue font.
- Lines 72-77: Add references in each sentence
Response: Thanks for reviewer’s suggestion. We have corrected this error and added references in L72-77.
- Lines 86-77: Add references
Response: Thanks for reviewer’s suggestion. We have corrected this error and added references in the manuscript.
- Line 121: Correct the “detection job”…
Response: Thanks for reviewer’s suggestion. We have corrected this error in the manuscript.
- Lines 132-139: You should write the aims of your study as well as the entire materials and methods, results, and discussion/conclusions using active voice!!!
E.g. don’t use “This study also needs to propose a new deep learning detection method for Achnatherum splendens based on improving the backbone, neck, and head parts of the traditional YOLOv5.”
But: “We propose a new deep learning detection method for Achnatherum splendens based on improving the backbone, neck, and head parts of the traditional YOLOv5”
Response: Thanks for reviewer’s suggestion and experience. We have rewritten this section in blue font in L126-134.
Figure 1: Add a North Arrow in each map
Response: Thanks for reviewer’s suggestion and experience. We have corrected this error in Figure 1.
Discussion
- You have to add some references!!!
Response: Thanks for reviewer’s suggestion and experience. We have added some references in discussion.
- In the discussion section, it would be valuable to address more clearly the potential limitations of the proposed YOLO-Sp model.
Response: Thanks for reviewer’s suggestion and experience. We've explored and summarized in 440-444.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
Thank you for submitting your article entitled "YOLO-Sp: A novel deep learning model based on Trans-2former for Achnatherum splendens detection" for consideration. I want to express my appreciation for your manuscript, as I found it truly captivating and thoroughly enjoyed reading it. However, I have identified a few minor issues that I believe would enhance the clarity and impact of your manuscript.
Introduction
1. Lines 12: You should remove the reference from the abstract.
2. Lines 31: I am not entirely sure about this statement. Nevertheless you should definitely add a reference to support it.
3. Lines 33-34: Correct this statement to be clearer. You cannot
"develop" the natural environment…
4. In the entire Introduction section there are some missing spaces
5. Regarding the species Achnatherum splendens. The first time that you mentioned it in the text, put the common name in parentheses. After that, you should write it as A. splendens. You have to use italics every time you refer to a species (e.g. Colchicum autumnale, Rumex obtusifolius).
6. Lines 50-55: Add references in each sentence
7. Line 68: Conversely not converse
8. Line 72: “Changes in the relative composition of vegetation” Is this a sub-title? I don’t understand what you are trying to say.
9. Lines 72-77: Add references in each sentence
10. Lines 86-77: Add references
11. Line 121: Correct the “detection job”…
12. Lines 132-139: You should write the aims of your study as well as the entire materials and methods, results, and discussion/conclusions using active voice!!!
E.g. don’t use “This study also needs to propose a new deep learning detection method for Achnatherum splendens based on improving the backbone, neck, and head parts of the traditional YOLOv5.”
But: “We propose a new deep learning detection method for Achnatherum splendens based on improving the backbone, neck, and head parts of the traditional YOLOv5”
Figure 1: Add a North Arrow in each map
Discussion
13. You have to add some references!!!
14. In the discussion section, it would be valuable to address more clearly the potential limitations of the proposed YOLO-Sp model.
Minor editing of the English language is required
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your letter and comments about our manuscript entitled “YOLO-Sp: A novel deep learning model based on Transformer for Achnatherum splendens detection” (Manuscript ID: agriculture-2425743). Those comments are all valuable and helpful for revising and improving our paper. According to the comments, we revised the paper. Detailed revisions please see below.
Meanwhile, revised portions were marked in blue in the revised manuscript.
Thank you.
Response to Reviewer #2:
Dear Authors
I went through your research paper and found it interesting. However, I suggest you to perform a little modification in your paper as follows:
1. please explain why this plant species and not the others
Response: Thanks for reviewer’s suggestion and experience. We regret that it may not have been explained clearly in the manuscript. We have elaborated on L37-54 of the revised manuscript. It is precisely because of the characteristics of A. splendens in typical grasslands that it motivates us to monitor. We hope that the revised manuscript has made it clear to you. Thank you very much for your opinion.
Make a table in material and method and within that table describe the deferences between your code and the other deep learning algorithms.
Response: Thanks for reviewer’s suggestion and experience. We are sorry for possibly confusing you by not expressing clearly in the manuscript. In L233 of the manuscript, we detail the structure of the new algorithm. L315 of the manuscript lists the differences in model size, inference time, etc., between our proposed algorithm and other algorithms. The above information is marked in blue font. We hope this clears up your confusion. Thank you very much for your suggestion
please apply the codes you have mentioned in Tables 2,3 and 4 on one image and compare the output results.
Response: Thanks for reviewer’s suggestion. We want to discuss this issue with you. You mean to compare the differences between multiple algorithms on one graph. However, this is not easy to do. First, we performed an inference between each model and our proposed model. Its effect on the image may be various. Putting good or bad images in a manuscript can confuse readers. At present, most scholars have yet to apply it in this way. Furthermore, we apply many deep learning evaluation metrics to evaluate deep learning models. This method is widely used in most journals and conferences. We emulate this approach to make it more convincing. Finally, the images show how this applies to the proposed new model. This method only shows the values on the above evaluation indicators. We hope you are satisfied with our explanation. Your help is greatly appreciated, and we look forward to future discussions with you
please make more discussions about why we have to choose your code instead of available ones.
Response: Thanks for reviewer’s suggestion. We think your suggestion is very helpful. We have corrected it in blue font at L387-414. Thank you very much for your suggestion
Regards,
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
1. It is necessary to present the prerequisites for the formation of Achnatherum splendens detection in pasture meadows, as well as the proposed solutions for getting rid of this object.
2. The formulation of scientific novelty does not correspond to the form of presentation.
3. Scientific novelty must be stated in accordance with the results obtained: algorithm, methodology, model (in a single logical structure).
4. It is necessary to provide justification for choosing a binocular stereo camera.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your letter and comments about our manuscript entitled “YOLO-Sp: A novel deep learning model based on Transformer for Achnatherum splendens detection” (Manuscript ID: agriculture-2425743). Those comments are all valuable and helpful for revising and improving our paper. According to the comments, we revised the paper. Detailed revisions please see below.
Meanwhile, revised portions were marked in blue in the revised manuscript.
Thank you.
Response to Reviewer #3:
- It is necessary to present the prerequisites for the formation of Achnatherum splendens detection in pasture meadows, as well as the proposed solutions for getting rid of this object.
Response: Thanks for reviewer’s suggestion. We think your suggestion is very helpful. We have supplemented this in blue font at L445-451 of the manuscript
- The formulation of scientific novelty does not correspond to the form of presentation.
Response: Thanks for reviewer’s suggestion. The detection indicators and the proposed model structure have been detailed in the paper. We have reformulated L387-413 in the manuscript. If the results of our revision are not satisfactory to you, we look forward to continuing to communicate with you
- Scientific novelty must be stated in accordance with the results obtained: algorithm, methodology, model (in a single logical structure).
Response: Thanks for reviewer’s suggestion. We have reformulated L387-413 in the manuscript. If the results of our revision are not satisfactory to you, we look forward to continuing to communicate with you
- It is necessary to provide justification for choosing a binocular stereo camera.
Response: Thanks for reviewer’s suggestion. We think your suggestion is very helpful. We have supplemented this in blue font at L166-168 of the manuscript
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
